Ruardganzevoort.nl

The ambiguous success of gender studies in practical
R.Ruard Ganzevoort A paper for the Expert meeting Gender Studies in Theology and Religion: A Success-Story? Groningen, 27-28 January 2011
Adam, where are you? That is the first question that comes to mind when I think
about the success of gender studies in practical theology. It is not difficult at all to
list dozens of women who have contributed to gender-awareness in practical
theology both in the Netherlands and internationally. While we are here in
Groningen, let me not only thank all of you and the organizers, but mention
specifically the work of Riet Bons-Storm. In her writings and teaching, but also in
her activities within the International Academy of Practical Theology (where she
ranks among the founders), she has been a vigorous advocate of overcoming
gender imbalance. And as we have been reminiscing the initiatives to correct for
that in the International Academy, I am proud to say that Riet refused to
nominate me for that reason. She is in fact one of many: women who have fought
against the semi-conscious privileging of men, women who have offered a critical
analysis of the gender system in theology and religion, women who have given a
voice to the experiences of women, especially from disadvantaged contexts. They
have become more and more central in the discipline and in the International
Academy. By now, feminist and pro-feminist scholars are dominant in leadership,
and four out of five keynote speakers later this year will be women. So Eve has found her way to the royal gallery of practical theology, but where is
Adam? He still seems to rule the place, of course, but actually he is in hiding. Is it
merely a coincidence that almost all the speakers at this expert meeting are
women? And that those who are not are either added to a session with two
women, or gay? Or does it still reflect the old structure of patriarchy in which only
women (and maybe gay men) were supposed to have a gender, because men were
the hegemonic and thus standard group who didn’t have to reflect on their gender
status? And where transgenders are invisible because they don’t fit the binary? Just
like ‘people of color’ includes people of all colors except the hegemonic white. Or
like ‘sexual diversity’ seems to apply to all sexual varieties except heterosexuality.
Is it a coincidence that so few male scholars explicitly address gender issues in
their work? While I know many female scholars in my field who have done so, it
would be difficult to come up with more than ten names of men who have
systematically taken gender into account. And if I would be looking more
Conference Success of gender studies, January 28-29 2011, Groningen
specifically for straight men studying gender in practical theology, it would be
even more difficult. Not impossible, but it would be a very small harvest. Adam,
where are you? To understand the place and ambiguous success of gender studies in practical
theology, it is important first to try and describe the discipline itself. This is,
however, easier said than done. Practical theology is arguably the theological
discipline with the least consensus about its definition. Some say that its main
debates are always about the issue of defining itself, thereby limiting its value for
the rest of the world. An interesting game of navel gazing that is hardly practical
and certainly not theological. That is overstated, of course, but not entirely untrue.
The connections between empirical investigation, theological reflection, and
strategic implementation are complicated and require ongoing discussion. But that
does not mean necessarily that the discipline as a whole is in a constant state of
confusion and dispute. More important perhaps is the fact that there are a number of different
perspectives that are not easily reconciled. They differ in their answer to the
question what should be studied: ordained ministry, church life, religion, culture,
society. They differ in their ideas how practice and theology are connected. They
differ in the grounds on which they think normative claims are to be settled: the
Bible, church tradition, social sciences. They differ in their view on the role of the
practical theologian: distanced observer or pious religious leader. Many of these differences can be traced back to three streams in the history of
practical theology. Up to today, these are discernable as separate discourses, and
they show a remarkably different level of gender awareness. The three discourses
parallel David Tracy’s famous distinction between the three audiences of
theology. Even though he was speaking of theology in general rather than of
practical theology in particular, his observations hold true for these practical
theological perspectives as well. According to Tracy the audiences of academy,
church, and society each ask for a specific theological perspective and each pose
specific challenges for justification. The first practical theological perspective often goes by the name of pastoral
theology. It represents the classical focus on ministerial formation and is therefore
related to the so-called clerical paradigm. The primary audience in this perspective
is the church and the key question is how individuals can be trained for and
supported in their tasks in ordained ministry. The habitus of the theologian and
his or her initiation and ordination are at the forefront and church traditions play
an important role in the normative debates surrounding this ministry. Classical
versions include the medieval notion of theologia practica, the idea that all
theology has to contribute to the piety of the believers. More recent versions of
this perspective give more attention to personal development, supervision, and
the like. This stream is characterized by a natural form of conservatism, precisely
because of its close connection to the church and its tradition. Surely, women
Conference Success of gender studies, January 28-29 2011, Groningen
have gradually taken their place in the past century, but that is still only a brief
period, and large parts of the church still deny them equal opportunities. It is not
too harsh to judge that this first is still a male dominated perspective, like it has
always been. Because of that, gender questions have not been addressed properly. The second practical theological perspective finds its primary audience in the
academy. The history of this perspective slowly started with the emergence of the
modern university after the middle ages, but it evolved more fully in the past half
century. It strives to develop the discipline from ecclesial training to a fully
academic discipline, defined by high quality research and often close affiliation
with social sciences. It sometimes goes by the name of empirical theology, but
there are also historical, philosophical, and biblical-theological versions. The key
notion is that practical theology is scientific or scholarly work. It studies religious
practices and may even develop strategies to improve them, but it is not itself
necessarily immersed in those practices. Here practical theology is less governed
by the normative tradition of the church and more by the methodological do’s
and don’ts of academic work. As has been noted in other disciplines, this
perspective is also dominated by men. Gender issues may be studied as an
academic topic, but it is not uncommon to find a lack of awareness of the
researchers’ own position and perspective as men. This is precisely because the
dominant discourse in the academy stresses objectivity and distanciation, thereby
suggesting disembedded absolute knowledge. The white male perspective is not
critiqued for being just one perspective, but is privileged as being the real thing. The third practical theological perspective orients itself to society. This
perspective draws mainly on contextual and liberation theologies. It prioritizes the
experiences of the marginalized and subaltern voices and perspectives.
Noteworthy are the early contributions from Latin America, but it has spread to a
wide variety of cultural minority groups. For our topic today, we should look
specifically at the contributions of feminist and womanist theologies as wel as gay
liberation and queer theology. All these are efforts to lend a voice to
underprivileged or subjugated groups and aim at their emancipation. They take a
starting point in the acknowledgment of subjectivity, the crucial influence of the
social location from where one is speaking, and the need to critique social
positions and cultural perspectives. This liberationist perspective in practical
theology shows a clear correlation with gender studies, but the two are not
identical. To be sure, these three perspectives are not limited to their natural locations.
Universities and especially seminaries may be devoted to pastoral theology; some
churches may stress the value of liberation theologies, and so on. I am not talking
about the locations but about the discourses that originated from these locations.
These discourses represent different styles and the work done is evaluated by
different criteria. Most important and most obvious however is the observation
that gender awareness plays a significant role only in the third perspective. Even
though this is one of the constitutive dimensions of practical theology, the other
two are not as much inclined to include a gender studies perspective – and are in
Conference Success of gender studies, January 28-29 2011, Groningen
fact better anchored in structural power positions. Both in academia and in the
church, the position of men often still goes unchallenged because – so my
contention – gender studies functions only in the less powerful liberationist
perspective. This relates to the fact that we easily and uncritically blend gender
studies (an academic lens for analysis), gender perspectives (giving attention to the
different voices and experiences of men and women), and gender justice actions
(focusing especially on the position of women in church and academe). If there is
a position in gender studies, it is often assumed that a woman should be
appointed. Wouldn’t it be more effective to appoint a male scholar in gender
studies and a female scholar in some innocent field like New Testament? The connection of gender studies with emancipatory approaches is not unique for
practical theology. There has often been a confluence of advocating better
positions for women, affirmative action, criticizing patriarchy, and studying the
role of gender. This combination of the academic, the strategic, and the personal
has contributed much to the visibility of women and to a lesser degree of non-
hegemonic men. The exposure of their subjectivity served to challenge the
subjectivity-taken-for-objectivity of the male dominated academic and ecclesial
hierarchies. The less than systematic attention for gender in the other two
perspectives, however, limits the possibilities. As long as gender studies is
perceived as the political interest of minority groups, it will remain the arena of
female and marginal male subjectivity. This means that we have to engage hegemonic men in gender studies much more
effectively. But that is easier said than done, precisely because they are hegemonic
men. It is much easier to become aware of the limitations of your subjectivity if
you belong to a minority group. In a sense, all the early feminists – or gay activists
for that matter – had to do was raise their voice and make themselves heard. That
was difficult enough because of the social pressure and limitations. But
discovering their own subjectivity was not the hardest part. Or to put it
differently: to shout out that you have your own story takes only one step. For
people from a hegemonic group, the necessary movement consists of two
paradoxical steps. First they have to unlearn the voice that they thought was their
own and then they have to discover their own subjectivity. For that reason it is
not enough for a man to take a feminist position. That would only imply that he
would forego his own subjectivity once again and fall into the same trap of seeing
oneself through the eyes of another. I for one have never identified as a feminist
or pro-feminist for that reason. I have, for obvious reasons, also avoided the
natural counter-term masculinist. But this is precisely the problem for men with
regard to gender perspectives. How can we develop gender-awareness and
masculine subjectivity? As a sidenote: we are often still talking about a rather simple dichotomy of male
and female, homosexual and heterosexual, and we have hardly started to include
the wider varieties of sex and sexuality, like intersexual, transsexual, asexual,
Conference Success of gender studies, January 28-29 2011, Groningen
bisexual, and so on and so forth. All these groups not only ask for attention, they
challenge the gender and sexual binaries we take for granted. I learned a lot from
a meeting with transgendered people in which one apparently male, strong,
bearded, tattooed, seaman-type person said: ‘I am John, I am a woman, and I
don’t see the need to change my body.’ To interpret these processes, it may be useful to explore Baumann’s (2004) theory
of ‘selfing and othering’. Baumann departs from the view that claims to identity
inevitably correlate with exclusions of alterity (every ‘us’ excludes a ‘them’) by
describing a more complex set of three different grammars of connecting identity
and alterity. In describing them, one should note that they are built on differences
between groups and fail to account for the complexities in both groups and the
large overlap between the two. We use them here precisely because they help us
understand the ways in which controversies are framed. Apart from the binary
grammar of only oppositions (which Baumann calls an ‘anti-grammar’), the first
grammar is one of orientalizing. This is in fact a binary grammar in which self and
other are attributed oppositional sets of features. In the case of gender, different
characteristics are attributed to men and women. The messages men and women
hear are markedly different and influence the space they take and the roles they
play. Men for example are supposed to be rational and academic, women
subjective and pastoral. The orientalizing grammar adds sophistication to the
binary grammar by acknowledging that the other-group may have some admirable
features that the self-group misses. For example, men may describe women as
more sensitive. These positive attributions, however still serve dichotomous
relationships. Therefore this grammar is usually a barrier to dialogue. The second grammar is one of segmentation. In this grammar, society is divided
in different groups that are subdivided again and again. By consequence, where
two persons may belong to the same group at a higher level in this hierarchy of
segmentation, they may belong to different groups at a lower level. Different
subcultures of women may be very much separated from one another, yet join
together over against a male dominated society. The question is, however, how
the segmentation hierarchy is organized. There have been painful encounters
between white women from Europe or North America and black woman from
Africa, in which the first defined themselves as allies with the latter against male
domination, whereas the latter defined themselves as allies with the black men
against white domination. Regardless of the level of segmentation, there is always
the risk of turning into an orientalizing grammar. Although this segmentation
grammar allows for contextual awareness and the understanding that on the
highest level we all belong to the same group, it is easily employed to demonize
the other and prevent any proper dialogue. The third grammar is described as encompassment. This grammar acknowledges
the difference of the other, but then defines a higher level in which the other is
similar to the self. This similarity however is not defined as a higher order as in
the segmentation grammar, but it is defined by the characteristics of the self that
are projected on the other. By consequence, this grammar is often used primarily
Conference Success of gender studies, January 28-29 2011, Groningen
by dominant groups who incorporate (or colonize) the minority groups by
allowing them to feel different and reinterpreting them as being intrinsically the
same, thus resisting the challenge to the dominant group’s self-understanding
inherent to the encounter with the other. The linguistic tendency to define
humanity in masculine terms – mankind – is a case in point. Women are accepted
as a subspecies, but their perspective is seen as subjective, whereas the male
perspective is seen as objective. Similarly, the perspective of other gender- or
sexual minority groups counts as subjective and not as equal. As a result, these
minority voices cannot easily challenge the dominant group. If we apply this model to the development of gender studies, gender critique and
emancipation movements in practical theology, we may interpret the traditional
perspective of many contribution as working with a grammar of encompassment.
The role of women and LGBT persons is more and more accepted, but as a
subspecies, not really challenging the privileged position of male heterosexism. I
find that even in my own work, I am very self-conscious when I engage in
projects that relate to homosexuality. Am I not discrediting myself? Am I not too
subjective? Am I not too far off the beaten track of academic practical theology?
Am I not too much of an activist? I believe these are legitimate questions, but
how come I never ask them when I study bereavement, post-traumatic growth,
non-traditional spirituality, or religion and cinema? These topics are also directly
related to my own experiences and show how much the personal is theological.
But my subjectivity is much less contested as it is when I engage in topics of
sexuality and masculinity. If encompassment is the primary grammar of hegemonic men in our discipline,
for a long time women and marginal men will learn to live accordingly and even
define themselves in the terms of the hegemonic group. It is a major effort in
identity politics to demand not being accepted for being essential y similar, but for
being different. The first step to do so is to deny this encompassment and claim
the differences. The first wave of feminism and of gay liberation was to speak up,
to claim a different voice. This is often done in an effort to move to a grammar of
segmentation, in which the hegemonic and subaltern voices go together. As long
as the hegemonic group does not accept that grammar of segmentation, this
attempt is futile. The second wave of emancipation therefore is often more one of
conflict, basically returning to an orientalizing grammar. Staunch feminists of this
second wave sometimes treated all men as responsible for gender inequality, or
even as potential patriarchs and perpetrators. Stalwart gay liberationists opposed
every moral ordering of sexual desire for being heterosexist oppression. This is
the typical black and white approach of the first grammar. It doesn’t help in the
long run, but it may be essential in overcoming the grammar of encompassment.
It is probably only after that battle that a real and fruitful grammar of
segmentation can be developed in which we can accept differences and
similarities and overcome the power divisions that limit us.
Conference Success of gender studies, January 28-29 2011, Groningen
Maybe that is where we are today. There is – I would say – an ambiguous success
for gender studies in practical theology. As an academic lens, as acknowledging
the perspective of women, and as a call for gender justice, it has been and become
an intrinsic dimension of practical theology, thanks to Eve. But we have to
become smarter than that. If we don’t find ways to lure Adam out of the bushes
of ecclesial power and scientific objectivity and get him to look critically and
unashamed at the fig leaf of his masculinity, gender studies will remain the private
game of women like you and silly men like myself.
Conference Success of gender studies, January 28-29 2011, Groningen

From the Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference of the Association of Reptilian and Amphibian Veterinarians, 1997, pp. 137-147. UNDERSTANDING THE SNAKE MITE AND CURRENT THERAPIES FOR ITS CONTROL Dale DeNardo, D.V.M., Ph.D.* Edward J. Wozniak, D.V.M., Ph.D. Animal Resource Services, School of Veterinary Medicine Abstract: Ophionyssus natricis (Parasitiformes: Macronyssid